Handwriting and Typing in Students with and without Additional Needs in Higher Education: Product, Process and Perceptions
Saved in:
| Title: | Handwriting and Typing in Students with and without Additional Needs in Higher Education: Product, Process and Perceptions |
|---|---|
| Language: | English |
| Authors: | Nichola Stuart (ORCID |
| Source: | Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs. 2026 26(1). |
| Availability: | Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us |
| Peer Reviewed: | Y |
| Page Count: | 16 |
| Publication Date: | 2026 |
| Document Type: | Journal Articles Reports - Research |
| Education Level: | Higher Education Postsecondary Education |
| Descriptors: | Handwriting, Higher Education, Student Needs, Computer Uses in Education, Academic Accommodations (Disabilities), Testing Accommodations, Student Attitudes, Foreign Countries, Learning Disabilities, English |
| Geographic Terms: | United Kingdom |
| DOI: | 10.1111/1471-3802.70058 |
| ISSN: | 1471-3802 |
| Abstract: | In Higher Education (HE), students with additional needs are often provided with examination accommodations, typically the use of a computer and/or additional time. Such provisions are commonly made for students with Specific Learning Difficulties or other neurodevelopmental conditions that can negatively impact written expression. In the UK, these arrangements are detailed in an Inclusive Support Plan (ISP) or similar institutional document. The aim of this study was to examine typing in English speaking HE students with and without additional needs. The performance of 16 students with ISPs who were offered accommodations in handwritten examinations was compared with 56 students who had regular provision (RP) in examinations. Measures included the handwriting and typing product (speed and accuracy across a range of tasks including copying and composition), typing process (technique), and self-perceptions of and preferences for typing. Typing speeds were faster than handwriting in both groups, but the ISP group had slower typing and handwriting speeds than their peers. Most students reported using non-standard typing techniques, not having received 'touch-typing' instruction, and a preference for typing over handwriting, with speed, comfort and legibility cited as the main reasons. The findings challenge whether the accommodations that are usually offered are appropriate for students with additional needs. They also highlight the importance of collecting information about the typing product (across a range of tasks), the typing process, and student perceptions and preferences to help inform decisions about accommodations for handwritten examinations and whether the provision of additional support for typing would be beneficial. |
| Abstractor: | As Provided |
| Entry Date: | 2026 |
| Accession Number: | EJ1495185 |
| Database: | ERIC |
| Abstract: | In Higher Education (HE), students with additional needs are often provided with examination accommodations, typically the use of a computer and/or additional time. Such provisions are commonly made for students with Specific Learning Difficulties or other neurodevelopmental conditions that can negatively impact written expression. In the UK, these arrangements are detailed in an Inclusive Support Plan (ISP) or similar institutional document. The aim of this study was to examine typing in English speaking HE students with and without additional needs. The performance of 16 students with ISPs who were offered accommodations in handwritten examinations was compared with 56 students who had regular provision (RP) in examinations. Measures included the handwriting and typing product (speed and accuracy across a range of tasks including copying and composition), typing process (technique), and self-perceptions of and preferences for typing. Typing speeds were faster than handwriting in both groups, but the ISP group had slower typing and handwriting speeds than their peers. Most students reported using non-standard typing techniques, not having received 'touch-typing' instruction, and a preference for typing over handwriting, with speed, comfort and legibility cited as the main reasons. The findings challenge whether the accommodations that are usually offered are appropriate for students with additional needs. They also highlight the importance of collecting information about the typing product (across a range of tasks), the typing process, and student perceptions and preferences to help inform decisions about accommodations for handwritten examinations and whether the provision of additional support for typing would be beneficial. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1471-3802 |
| DOI: | 10.1111/1471-3802.70058 |
